ZEQ2 Lite

Friday, June 11, 2010

over all vista inhales buttocks

Friday, June 11, 2010

najeeb wrote : over all vista inhales buttocks

In some years, when the games requires dx10/11 and more ram, you'll regret of those words

Friday, June 11, 2010

people will rather shift to win 7

Friday, June 11, 2010

indeed Windows 7 rocks vista big time !!

as for RealDeal , can you set the compatibility mode to Windows XP in Vista?

Friday, June 11, 2010

ESFER25 wrote :

najeeb wrote : over all vista inhales buttocks

In some years, when the games requires dx10/11 and more ram, you'll regret of those words

NO , xp is more than enough for graphics maybe not dx11 but 10 runs on the last xp version sp3

Saturday, June 12, 2010

just figured out this is not even da island city maps fault

my friend just downloaded ZEQ2 and this happened

game is buggy

Saturday, June 12, 2010

najeeb wrote :

ESFER25 wrote :

najeeb wrote : over all vista inhales buttocks

In some years, when the games requires dx10/11 and more ram, you'll regret of those words

NO , xp is more than enough for graphics maybe not dx11 but 10 runs on the last xp version sp3

xp has a limited ram too, so wait some years and see how xp is getting older and older. Anyway, xp is the best release windows has done but it's getting older as I said *intense laughter*

EDIT: XP is good, there's no doubt about it. But Vista and se7en is better. Assume it slam fanatical enthusiastic young child *laughing out loud*

Saturday, June 12, 2010

Microsoft is pulling their own plug! They created XP, now they want to get rid of by any means necessary. Everyone get on the line and time to upgrade it.
Why not Windows 7? They offer Hyper-Extreme-Mega-Blasting-Chuck-Norris features all over Windows 7.
Have you even saw this?!


Or


Now that's Hyper-Extreme-Mega-Blasting-Chuck-Norris effects. You need DirectX 10/11, and you definitively need Windows Vista/7 for it!

Start getting rid of XP and upgrade your WIndows to Vista or 7. (along with your hardware)

Saturday, June 12, 2010

NICE WALL[PAPERS MAN I WANTED THESE

Saturday, June 12, 2010

These are definitely not wallpapers to put on your tiny outdated screen! It IS the clear difference between two games running on the outdated XP-ish DirectX 9 and the super awesomeish Vista's highly marketing scheme regarding high and mighty futuristic and out of place graphics using DirectX 10. Didn't I said explicitly that Vista and 7 has the power to grant those puny XP oldie crushing vision of our beloved company?

Saturday, June 12, 2010

ESFER25 wrote :

najeeb wrote :

ESFER25 wrote :

najeeb wrote : over all vista inhales buttocks

In some years, when the games requires dx10/11 and more ram, you'll regret of those words

NO , xp is more than enough for graphics maybe not dx11 but 10 runs on the last xp version sp3

xp has a limited ram too, so wait some years and see how xp is getting older and older. Anyway, xp is the best release windows has done but it's getting older as I said *intense laughter*

EDIT: XP is good, there's no doubt about it. But Vista and se7en is better. Assume it slam fanatical enthusiastic young child *laughing out loud*

xp doesn't have limited ram you fool , and jaden we can get a better graphik card , and those results of dx9 and dx 10 are old , xp supports dx10 but not 11

Saturday, June 12, 2010

If you have 8 and cadrillion gigabytes of RAM's... You going to use 'em all, right? Well.. WRONG! You can't go as much as 4GB, and even then, most of them will go to Windows XP... So technically you'll end up with what? 3.2GB of free memory? Now that's efficiency!

Just install the 64-bit version of Windows 7 Ultimate and you get up to 192GB of RAM support. Or 1TB if you decide to run your own server machine (but not meant for gaming). With Linux you can go as far as 128TB!

So, there, go with Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit and you'll end up with 192GB of RAM support without any glitch.

xp doesn't have limited ram you fool , and jaden we can get a better graphik card , and those results of dx9 and dx 10 are old , xp supports dx10 but not 11

DO NOT LIE NAJEEB, THERE IS NO SIGN OF OFFICIAL DIRECTX 10 SUPPORT IN WINDOWS XP

A major update to DirectX API, DirectX 10 ships with and is only available with Windows Vista and later; previous versions of Windows such as Windows XP are not able to officially run DirectX 10-exclusive applications.

Nada. No DirectX 10 for Windows XP. No idea where you did get the idea of having DirectX 10 under Windows XP. But if you did.. did it went well? If yes, then the developers of Microsoft weren't doing their jobs well. If it doesn't works.. then they succeeded!

Saturday, June 12, 2010

najeeb wrote : xp doesn't have limited ram you fool , and jaden we can get a better graphik card , and those results of dx9 and dx 10 are old , xp supports dx10 but not 11

I don't even remember how often I've told you not to spread false fiddle sticks when you obviously don't know anything about it, but it must be nearing 100x.

XP is a 32 bit operating system, meaning the size of a pointer used to reference one byte of memory is 32 bit.

2^32 byte = 4294967296 byte = 4194304 kilobyte = 4096 megabyte = 4 gigabyte.

More RAM is not possible. On top of that some of the adress space needs to be reserved for (other) hardware, resulting in a maximum of 3.5 gigabyte being usable and a maximum of ~3 gigabyte per application (ie. ZEQ2 Lite).

There exists an experimental 64 bit build of windows xp but that is hardly usable since virtually no hardware developer made 64 bit drivers for windows xp to begin with and it's not even supported by microsoft themselves, lacking even service pack 3.

So yes, it has a RAM limit, just like any other operating system (or even CPU which is limited by the number of pins) on the planet, who are you to call others a fool?


Oh and about DX10? Again, you're making up stuff. There's only an experimental and highly bugged DX10 version by a 3rd party team trying to port the functionality over. The team has ceased existence and has only ever released an unfinished preview version, so again stop making up stuff. It's hardly usable and more often than not requires a reinstall of windows, not to mention the risks of running buggy 3 year old software in kernel mode.

Saturday, June 12, 2010

void wrote :
XP is a 32 bit operating system, meaning the size of a pointer used to reference one byte of memory is 32 bit.

2^32 byte = 4294967296 byte = 4194304 kilobyte = 4096 megabyte = 4 gigabyte.

correct me if I'm wrong, but I though XP can't even handle 4gb of ram ?

I have 4gb ram in my laptop but WinXP only saw 3 of it, now with 7 I see 4gb

Saturday, June 12, 2010

Yeah those ~3 GB sound about right. Like I said in the paragraph following what you quoted, it's the maximum which can be technically addressed on a 32 bit platform.

The problem however is that RAM isn't the only piece of hardware (or theoretically even software) that needs to be addressed.

Pretty much every piece of your hardware will require some of that space too. The most prominent one being a video card.

Every MB of Video RAM will reduce the available physical RAM by 1 MB (so 1:1), so if you put in a dual geforce sli configuration with each card coming with a full GB of RAM you've just lost 2 GB of address space and thus are left with less than 2 GB of regular RAM even if 4 GB are built-in.


There's also a whole bunch of other things that may require address space, so the numbers you're seeing will even be lower than 4 GB - Video RAM, some space is reserved for the kernel, some is used for the swap file and some may even use techniques like UNIX's mmaping, where a file from the hard disk is mapped directly into RAM or more specifically the physical address space.


EDIT:
Oh wait, I removed the paragraph I was referring to prior to posting because I thought it'd be to complicated, anyway above explaination explains where part of the 4 GB will go.

Saturday, June 12, 2010

xp suports 8 gb I have it , and I saw the difference and xp has a 64bit version too

Saturday, June 12, 2010

najeeb wrote : xp suports 8 gb I have it , and I saw the difference

No, it doesn't.

102nd time I tell you to be a little more quiet when you don't know stuff.

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa366778(VS.85).aspx
http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/platform/server/PAE/PAEdrv.mspx

Sunday, June 13, 2010

najeeb seriously xp supports only 3gb

and about dx10 you can download it but it will never start[cause da pc to crash]
or it will run in dx9 mode

the only 1up thing xp has on vista is the compatibility advantage
I can't play roadrash,Dave,Bio Menace,and some new games on vista and 7

and what the heck happened to the bug solving

Sunday, June 13, 2010

Wait, since when did XP's 64-bit operating system become "experimental"? My old roomate (bachelor of computer science) actually PURCHASED the operating system and has been using it for over half a decade without a hitch. Sorry to admit but Najeeb is in the right boat here for once. The operating system was most certainly officially supported, sold in stores, and distributed with a lot of pre-built business-end/multimedia-end systems.

To the extent at which proper "official" drivers existed I cannot say with certainty, but an operating system having every single possible driver for every single bit of hardware in existence "out of the box" is one of the reasons why Vista and Windows 7 are so utterly bloated with components you'll never need/use.

Besides, finding or patching together third-party drivers are half the fun of setting things up (or did no one else have a Savage 2000 / Voodoo 3 video card in XP?).

Also, whoever is making the call that DirectX10 support in XP was a disaster surely either [a] hasn't tried it themselves (most likely those who just read clumsy forum user posts) or [b] only tried the initial Alky project distribution.

There are plenty of variants floating around that can dabbled into with minimal stress. And what's this about requiring you to reinstall your operating system? Seriously, that's going way too far in scare tactics against the concept. The DLL's you replace in the process[es] are hardly system crucial and easily restored.

Aside from all that there are other ways to tap into newer GPU features running Windows XP aside from DirectX10+.

Sunday, June 13, 2010

Zeth wrote : Wait, since when did XP's 64-bit operating system become "experimental"? My old roomate (bachelor of computer science) actually PURCHASED the operating system and has been using it for over half a decade without a hitch. Sorry to admit but Najeeb is in the right boat here for once. The operating system was most certainly officially supported, sold in stores, and distributed with a lot of pre-built business-end/multimedia-end systems.

To the extent at which proper "official" drivers existed I cannot say with certainty, but an operating system having every single possible driver for every single bit of hardware in existence "out of the box" is one of the reasons why Vista and Windows 7 are so utterly bloated with components you'll never need/use.

Besides, finding or patching together third-party drivers are half the fun of setting things up (or did no one else have a Savage 2000 / Voodoo 3 video card in XP?).

Also, whoever is making the call that DirectX10 support in XP was a disaster surely either [a] hasn't tried it themselves (most likely those who just read clumsy forum user posts) or [b] only tried the initial Alky project distribution.

There are plenty of variants floating around that can dabbled into with minimal stress. And what's this about requiring you to reinstall your operating system? Seriously, that's going way too far in scare tactics against the concept. The DLL's you replace in the process[es] are hardly system crucial and easily restored.

Aside from all that there are other ways to tap into newer GPU features running Windows XP aside from DirectX10+.

Well, what do you know, Najeeb is right!

We're all going to die..

Sunday, June 13, 2010

I AM VERY SORRY NAJEEB I FORGOT ABOUT WIN XP 64 BIT
IT SUPPORTS MORE THAN 3 GB

sorry dude[holding ears]

actually I didn't know der was a 64 bit xp
my brother had told me it was der but................................................................

still confused

Sunday, June 13, 2010

will the game require DirectX 10 ?! *intense laughter*
my graphic card doesn't support it

Sunday, June 13, 2010

No, he is not right. The fact that Windows XP 64 bit was sold in stores doesn't make it officially supported forever.

http://news.softpedia.com/news/64-Bit-Windows-XP-Service-Pack-3-73982.shtml

If you knew anything about xp 64's background you'd also know that it is technically not even xp, since it's using 2003 server's kernel and codebase just rebundled as a desktop system further adding to the experimental state.

It also doesn't have support for 16 bit windows programs or is able to load DOS programs, cause they NEVER got that far.

To the extent at which proper "official" drivers existed I cannot say with certainty, but an operating system having every single possible driver for every single bit of hardware in existence "out of the box" is one of the reasons why Vista and Windows 7 are so utterly bloated with components you'll never need/use.

That's totally missing the point. It's not about drivers shipping with XP, it#s about companies not creating 64 bit drivers for Windows XP. Good luck getting your network card working when there's no driver available (and no using a vista driver doesn't work).

NO , xp is more than enough for graphics maybe not dx11 but 10 runs on the last xp version sp3

He has xp 32 bit, else there wouldn't even be an sp3.

xp doesn't have limited ram you fool , and jaden we can get a better graphik card , and those results of dx9 and dx 10 are old , xp supports dx10 but not 11

There is always a ram limit, EVEN for 64 bit operating systems which is at maximum 2^64, actually it is even 2^48 since 64 bit CPU's lack the pins to address more than that currently.

But yeah Zeth, he's of course right, except that everything he ever said was wrong.


Realtek audio codecs have been loading DX libraries since forever for example and the ported DX10 drivers don't support the full DX10 spec.

Sunday, June 13, 2010

At the moment, I prefer XP. I had 7 but it does give lag on online games and I've had other issues with incompatibility, etc... Since I installed DirectX10 on XP. My gaming perfomance is better and so does graphics )

Sunday, June 13, 2010

hp321helder wrote : At the moment, I prefer XP. I had 7 but it does give lag on online games and I've had other issues with incompatibility, etc... Since I installed DirectX10 on XP. My gaming perfomance is better and so does graphics )

Lag!? I understand incompatibility but, lag!?